Orion,
WTF are you looking for exactly?
[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
Is this a joke?
No.
Of course christians have to pay taxes just like everybody else.
Why does everybody else have to pay taxes?
Is it true that everybody else has to pay taxes, just because someone feels obliged to?
What if a Christian feels he must pay taxes but does in no way expect you to do the same?
Yet you feel that your believe that you have to pay taxes binds all Christians as well? Why?
There’s plenty of shit that my tax dollars go to that I don’t support, I still have to pay, so why would someone else have the right to pick and choose based on their religion.
Because God>State?
Is nothing more important to you than the states commands?
Do you have an ethical obligation to pay for wars of aggression, bridges to nowhere or the bailout of millionaires?
What does your survey of New Testament ethics tell you thus far?
That it´s all over the place, but usually for theological reasons I don´t understand.
For example priests that took confessions were not supposed to bring up the topic of tax evasion unless the confessing person regarded it as a sin what he did.
It seems that there are some ways to sin that are only sinful if you believe them to be sinful?
Or maybe you are supposed to know yourself how much taxation is fair and if you do not think it is the priest is no better judge than you?
[/quote]
I guess you’re reading some Roman catholic doctrines. I can’t defend those since I’m not a Roman catholic and Roman catholic and Protestants have irreconcilable differences stemming from the Council of Trent.
I was more interested if you read various New Testament passages (Matthew 17, 22, Luke 12,1 Peter 2, Acts 5, Romans 13 )dealing with civil government and wondered what you got out of them yourself. If you want a summary of Protestant understanding of those passages, maybe you could read through the relevant parts of the Belgic Confession, Westminster confession, Augsburg Confession, etc.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, he did qualify what he said. He asked who’s picture is on a dinari (sp?).
True but that must have been meant as a metaphor.
You would not argue that you owe your taxes to Benjamin Franklin?
The Euro does not even have people on the bills, do I owe money to a bridge?
What is the supposed principle behind it and does it still apply today?
I don’t know, you seem very educated, enlighten me.
/sarcasm
Hah! Frog licking induced rants, classic rj, classic.
Excuse me, the Christian theory of taxation cannot be:
“Render unto caesar…”
Case closed- Without ever specifying “what is Caesars?”. Or what if if there are no more Caesars?
See here for a more detailed discussion of catholic tax teachings:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?cfid=107947&cftoken=31306486&abstract_id=74420
You can download it for free.
I do not practice catholicism myself.
The point is that if you want the “Christian” answer to the question, it is written in front of you because Jesus was asked the exact question. He answered it pretty directly IMO.
If you are trying to lure people into a dogmatic debate, good luck.
However, the point of the story wasn’t about Christians or taxes, but a reflection on asking a loaded question to try and crap on someone’s beliefs. Maybe you should re-read it a couple of times for personal benefit.[/quote]
They did not want to crap on his beliefs, they wanted him dead and a reason to have him killed.
And yes this is a dogmatic debate, from the moment on someones tells you that you must pay taxes. There is your dogma right there.
So tell me, who is Caesar?
Do you not live in a country governed by the people, for the people?
Are you not the sovereign?
Are you not Caesar?
Not that you have to discuss anything with me, but if you are a Christian I find the idea of not getting into dogmatic debates interesting. Thinking to have found the way, the truth and the light but not wanting to look too close into it seems strange to me.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Orion,
WTF are you looking for exactly?[/quote]
Why Christians think they ought to pay taxes.
Or Jews, Muslims , anybody really.
Religious answers are especially interesting though because they seem to be the only ones that can argue that you absolutely always have to pay taxes with some sincerity.
Orthodox Jews for example must not do something to disgrace their religion or that would hinder them from practicing their religion. So going to jail must be prevented at all costs. Also, not paying taxes is considered to be a form of lying.
Those teachings however go back to a time where it was universally assumed that a king was anointed by God.
Islam seems to have a more nuanced approach, no leader can demand more than what is just. The have the advantage though that the Q´ran is the direct word of God and every leader acting against the word of God loses his right to demand taxes.
Some Christians share that opinion , hence my question , what if your money is used to finance abortion clinics or unjust wars?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
Is this a joke?
No.
Of course christians have to pay taxes just like everybody else.
Why does everybody else have to pay taxes?
Is it true that everybody else has to pay taxes, just because someone feels obliged to?
What if a Christian feels he must pay taxes but does in no way expect you to do the same?
Yet you feel that your believe that you have to pay taxes binds all Christians as well? Why?
There’s plenty of shit that my tax dollars go to that I don’t support, I still have to pay, so why would someone else have the right to pick and choose based on their religion.
Because God>State?
Is nothing more important to you than the states commands?
Do you have an ethical obligation to pay for wars of aggression, bridges to nowhere or the bailout of millionaires?
What does your survey of New Testament ethics tell you thus far?
That it´s all over the place, but usually for theological reasons I don´t understand.
For example priests that took confessions were not supposed to bring up the topic of tax evasion unless the confessing person regarded it as a sin what he did.
It seems that there are some ways to sin that are only sinful if you believe them to be sinful?
Or maybe you are supposed to know yourself how much taxation is fair and if you do not think it is the priest is no better judge than you?
I guess you’re reading some Roman catholic doctrines. I can’t defend those since I’m not a Roman catholic and Roman catholic and Protestants have irreconcilable differences stemming from the Council of Trent.
I was more interested if you read various New Testament passages (Matthew 17, 22, Luke 12,1 Peter 2, Acts 5, Romans 13 )dealing with civil government and wondered what you got out of them yourself. If you want a summary of Protestant understanding of those passages, maybe you could read through the relevant parts of the Belgic Confession, Westminster confession, Augsburg Confession, etc.
[/quote]
There really is nothing to defend, not even the position of the Vatican is easily defendable (tax evasion is sin).
I am just looking for lines of reasoning and see where they lead.
Meaning I do not do theology, I just sample ideas.
[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s, give to God what is God’s.
That however was an answer to a question that was supposed to trick Jesus, he never qualified what is Caesars.
Also, we have no more Caesars, we are, supposedly, the sovereign.
How come our servants make US pay?
[/quote]
To fund things that are necessary for the functioning of our country. And to create the best nation overall for the most people.
The problem is that people fundamentally disagree over what will create that nation. And accordingly what their taxes should fund.
An even bigger problem these days is that those who fundamentally disgaree on the WHAT of makes a good county are in substantial AGREEMENT that the government is doing a piss poor job on the HOW.
Whatever your politics, no one is very happy with the execution of either party these days. Somewhere along the way, our government seems to have stopped being REPRESENTATIVE and simply does what it thinks is best.
The idea behind is taxes is very simple. If you think the government should provide absolutely nothing, not even national security, than a position that you shouldn’t be paying taxes is defensible.
Pay nothing, get nothing. Want something, pay something. Obviously the devil is in the details since we are all forced to fund programs and initiatives we don’t agree with.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s, give to God what is God’s.
That however was an answer to a question that was supposed to trick Jesus, he never qualified what is Caesars.
Also, we have no more Caesars, we are, supposedly, the sovereign.
How come our servants make US pay?
To fund things that are necessary for the functioning of our country. And to create the best nation overall for the most people.
The problem is that people fundamentally disagree over what will create that nation. And accordingly what their taxes should fund.
An even bigger problem these days is that those who fundamentally disgaree on the WHAT of makes a good county are in substantial AGREEMENT that the government is doing a piss poor job on the HOW.
Whatever your politics, no one is very happy with the execution of either party these days. Somewhere along the way, our government seems to have stopped being REPRESENTATIVE and simply does what it thinks is best. [/quote]
Your first paragraph is basically a utilitarian argument.
However what is the best for most people?
Because of that problem most utilitarians that propose redistribution are really economic utilitarians.
The Austrian school of economics however supports a utilitarian liberalism, meaning, the best outcome for the majority of people is achieved if the state interferes as little as possible.
This is another fascinating aspect, that philosophers that argue for redistribution for utilitarian reasons make assumptions that have been proven to be wrong by economists centuries ago.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The idea behind is taxes is very simple. If you think the government should provide absolutely nothing, not even national security, than a position that you shouldn’t be paying taxes is defensible.
Pay nothing, get nothing. Want something, pay something. Obviously the devil is in the details since we are all forced to fund programs and initiatives we don’t agree with.[/quote]
It is not that simple.
What if you do not think that government should build roads and yet you use them, even for lack of an alternative?
Is there a duty to pay for them?
Tax is a very general term. There are thousands of taxes and all have thier respective uses. Are you talking strictly income tax? You can’t really avoid paying sales taxes. What about Toll roads?
I am opposed to paying income tax because I don’t feel like I should be giving a percentage of the fruits of my labor to other people for thier own use. I also feel like right about now, every Dollar of my tax money that the government recieves is the equivalant to a crack rock being given to a crackhead. If not one single american paid an income tax, even the rich bastards, the government would have to cut spending back to the prehistoric time, of 1997. Thats right, All the other taxes and tariffs the government gets in BESIDES the income tax, would have run the government in 1997 and we wouldn’t have increased the federal debt.
I suggest you go watch America: Freedom to Fascism on youtube. It is a documentary that explains the real origional purpose of the income tax, which was to tax “profits” not “labor”. It also goes over court cases where people have fought the IRS and won. Granted not everyone wins, but it has been done. Also it shows some nice coverage of where a federal judge prohibited a man from using the constitution in his defense. The judge stated that it was not relevant and barred the man from referring to it. Nice.
V
[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, he did qualify what he said. He asked who’s picture is on a dinari (sp?).
True but that must have been meant as a metaphor.
You would not argue that you owe your taxes to Benjamin Franklin?
The Euro does not even have people on the bills, do I owe money to a bridge?
What is the supposed principle behind it and does it still apply today?
I don’t know, you seem very educated, enlighten me.
/sarcasm
Hah! Frog licking induced rants, classic rj, classic.
Excuse me, the Christian theory of taxation cannot be:
“Render unto caesar…”
Case closed- Without ever specifying “what is Caesars?”. Or what if if there are no more Caesars?
See here for a more detailed discussion of catholic tax teachings:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?cfid=107947&cftoken=31306486&abstract_id=74420
You can download it for free.
I do not practice catholicism myself.
The point is that if you want the “Christian” answer to the question, it is written in front of you because Jesus was asked the exact question. He answered it pretty directly IMO.
If you are trying to lure people into a dogmatic debate, good luck.
However, the point of the story wasn’t about Christians or taxes, but a reflection on asking a loaded question to try and crap on someone’s beliefs. Maybe you should re-read it a couple of times for personal benefit.
They did not want to crap on his beliefs, they wanted him dead and a reason to have him killed.
And yes this is a dogmatic debate, from the moment on someones tells you that you must pay taxes. There is your dogma right there.
So tell me, who is Caesar?
Do you not live in a country governed by the people, for the people?
Are you not the sovereign?
Are you not Caesar?
Not that you have to discuss anything with me, but if you are a Christian I find the idea of not getting into dogmatic debates interesting. Thinking to have found the way, the truth and the light but not wanting to look too close into it seems strange to me.
[/quote]
If you really think the people of any country are sovereign you are living in a dream world.
I won’t get into a dogmatic debate because I don’t necessarily believe in dogma. I almost consider it trying to take away from or add to the bible.
I have no problem with looking closely, but I’m pretty sure thats not what you are trying to do.
If you want to know my opinion of the story, here it is:
Jesus said that money isn’t important. If giving some coin to some guy keeps you out of jail and alive, then by all means, do it. The important part is not where your money goes, but where your heart does.
As for tax evasion being a sin, it probably is for most people. Most of us would do it not out of objections over what it was paying for, but out of greed. I know that would be the biggest motivation for me, hence I pay my taxes.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Tax is a very general term. There are thousands of taxes and all have thier respective uses. Are you talking strictly income tax? You can’t really avoid paying sales taxes. What about Toll roads?
[/quote]
Vegita brings up a good point. I know that the clergy can opt out of paying Self Employment Tax if he has moral objection to the tax.
Too bad the rest of us can’t opt out of Social Security.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Tax is a very general term. There are thousands of taxes and all have thier respective uses. Are you talking strictly income tax? You can’t really avoid paying sales taxes. What about Toll roads?
[/quote]
I mean all taxes.
However you are right, there are different kinds of taxes.
Even if you are a minarchist, you must admit that somehow that very small state must be financed.
That can be done with indirect taxes.
A direct tax, read:income tax, is a different animal altogether because it is basically serfdom. It is the direct opposite of the idea of anglo-saxon natural law doctrine, i.e the ideas the US were founded on.
Therein lies an interesting conflict for an American Christian.
Taxes for the purpose of re-dristribution of wealth, i.e. progressive taxes pose yet another problems.
[quote]
I am opposed to paying income tax because I don’t feel like I should be giving a percentage of the fruits of my labor to other people for thier own use. I also feel like right about now, every Dollar of my tax money that the government recieves is the equivalant to a crack rock being given to a crackhead. If not one single american paid an income tax, even the rich bastards, the government would have to cut spending back to the prehistoric time, of 1997. Thats right, All the other taxes and tariffs the government gets in BESIDES the income tax, would have run the government in 1997 and we wouldn’t have increased the federal debt.
V[/quote]
So, would it be ethical to deny a government the taxes it would waste anyway?
All taxes or only the part you consider to be wasted?
That is not an easy question, because in the case of abortion clinics or bridges to nowhere, you cannot simply deduct what would go there, because that would mean that only a smaller absolute amount of your money funds them, but still the same percentage.
What if your neighbor has to pay more because you stage your own little tax revolt?
This thread is gay…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, he did qualify what he said. He asked who’s picture is on a dinari (sp?).
True but that must have been meant as a metaphor.
You would not argue that you owe your taxes to Benjamin Franklin?
The Euro does not even have people on the bills, do I owe money to a bridge?
What is the supposed principle behind it and does it still apply today?
I don’t know, you seem very educated, enlighten me.
/sarcasm
Hah! Frog licking induced rants, classic rj, classic.
Excuse me, the Christian theory of taxation cannot be:
“Render unto caesar…”
Case closed- Without ever specifying “what is Caesars?”. Or what if if there are no more Caesars?
See here for a more detailed discussion of catholic tax teachings:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?cfid=107947&cftoken=31306486&abstract_id=74420
You can download it for free.
I do not practice catholicism myself.
The point is that if you want the “Christian” answer to the question, it is written in front of you because Jesus was asked the exact question. He answered it pretty directly IMO.
If you are trying to lure people into a dogmatic debate, good luck.
However, the point of the story wasn’t about Christians or taxes, but a reflection on asking a loaded question to try and crap on someone’s beliefs. Maybe you should re-read it a couple of times for personal benefit.
They did not want to crap on his beliefs, they wanted him dead and a reason to have him killed.
And yes this is a dogmatic debate, from the moment on someones tells you that you must pay taxes. There is your dogma right there.
So tell me, who is Caesar?
Do you not live in a country governed by the people, for the people?
Are you not the sovereign?
Are you not Caesar?
Not that you have to discuss anything with me, but if you are a Christian I find the idea of not getting into dogmatic debates interesting. Thinking to have found the way, the truth and the light but not wanting to look too close into it seems strange to me.
If you really think the people of any country are sovereign you are living in a dream world.
I won’t get into a dogmatic debate because I don’t necessarily believe in dogma. I almost consider it trying to take away from or add to the bible.
I have no problem with looking closely, but I’m pretty sure thats not what you are trying to do.
If you want to know my opinion of the story, here it is:
Jesus said that money isn’t important. If giving some coin to some guy keeps you out of jail and alive, then by all means, do it. The important part is not where your money goes, but where your heart does.
As for tax evasion being a sin, it probably is for most people. Most of us would do it not out of objections over what it was paying for, but out of greed. I know that would be the biggest motivation for me, hence I pay my taxes.[/quote]
See, this is what I am looking for.
I´ll try to phrase that in my own words to see if I got this, please correct me if I am wrong.
So you are saying that giving in to force is not really unethical if that is you only option. You give to Caesar not because of an ethical duty but because you cannot deny Caesar.
Then you think that what makes tax evasion a sin is not the act itself but the reason behind it.
There is a bishop in Italy that responded to the Vatican that it would not be a sin to withhold taxes if you could not otherwise provide for your family.
Would that be an instance where tax evasion might even be you moral duty?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Tax is a very general term. There are thousands of taxes and all have thier respective uses. Are you talking strictly income tax? You can’t really avoid paying sales taxes. What about Toll roads?
Vegita brings up a good point. I know that the clergy can opt out of paying Self Employment Tax if he has moral objection to the tax.
Too bad the rest of us can’t opt out of Social Security. [/quote]
If you could, and the government would have to bail it out every decade or so, would it really make a difference?
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Tax is a very general term. There are thousands of taxes and all have thier respective uses. Are you talking strictly income tax? You can’t really avoid paying sales taxes. What about Toll roads?
Vegita brings up a good point. I know that the clergy can opt out of paying Self Employment Tax if he has moral objection to the tax.
Too bad the rest of us can’t opt out of Social Security.
If you could, and the government would have to bail it out every decade or so, would it really make a difference?
[/quote]
If one is allowed to opt out, from paying, they are also opted out from receiving. What the government has to do for a broke system I am not a part of anymore would be no concern of mine.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
As for tax evasion being a sin, it probably is for most people. Most of us would do it not out of objections over what it was paying for, but out of greed. I know that would be the biggest motivation for me, hence I pay my taxes.[/quote]
Why is it “greedy” to want to keep the fruit of your labor?
Greediness is a concept invented by the “have-nots”. Is it greed that keeps a man toiling in the fields to feed his family? Is it greed that makes a man want the most pay he can get for his labor? A person cannot substitute greed for hard work to obtain wealth. He can however substitute hard work for immoral behavior to obtain it. What is commonly called greed is nothing more than the human condition to want more stuff in order to better one’s position in the world. Every human being depends on necessary ends for his survival and to reject the idea of a better condition than the state that exists now is inhuman. It is the only reason a man has to keep moving.
Greed does not exist.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Tax is a very general term. There are thousands of taxes and all have thier respective uses. Are you talking strictly income tax? You can’t really avoid paying sales taxes. What about Toll roads?
Vegita brings up a good point. I know that the clergy can opt out of paying Self Employment Tax if he has moral objection to the tax.
Too bad the rest of us can’t opt out of Social Security.
If you could, and the government would have to bail it out every decade or so, would it really make a difference?
If one is allowed to opt out, from paying, they are also opted out from receiving. What the government has to do for a broke system I am not a part of anymore would be no concern of mine.
[/quote]
And how do you think they would finance such a bailout?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
As for tax evasion being a sin, it probably is for most people. Most of us would do it not out of objections over what it was paying for, but out of greed. I know that would be the biggest motivation for me, hence I pay my taxes.
Why is it “greedy” to want to keep the fruit of your labor?
Greediness is a concept invented by the “have-nots”. Is it greed that keeps a man toiling in the fields to feed his family? Is it greed that makes a man want the most pay he can get for his labor? A person cannot substitute greed for hard work to obtain wealth. He can however substitute hard work for immoral behavior to obtain it. What is commonly called greed is nothing more than the human condition to want more stuff in order to better one’s position in the world. Every human being depends on necessary ends for his survival and to reject the idea of a better condition than the state that exists now is inhuman. It is the only reason a man has to keep moving.
Greed does not exist.[/quote]
That is an interesting point.
Can it be called greed if you want to keep your own money?
Is it not greed when someone else wants your money?
Can you still technically “sin” if you think you´re greedy but probably aren´t?